2003 review fidelity and translation

8/12/2019 2003 Review Fidelity and Translation

1/4

Katan, David (2003) Fidelity and Translation: Communicating the Bible in New Media TheTranslator Special Issue: Screen Translation. (vol. 9:2, pp. 346-350). Guest Editor: Yves Gambier.

Fidelity and Translation: Communicating the Bible in New Mediaedited by Paul A. Souku ! S.". and #obert $odgson

This collection o% essays! though mainly taken %rom a con%erence! reads &ery muchlike a well'organised book. The %ocus is on the translation issues in&ol&ed inada ting the Bible %or &ideo()*) and C)'#om. The con%erence was held in +,,-and was the nd sym osium on %aith%ulness organised between the American BibleAssociation /ABS0 and the 1nited Bible Societies /1BS0. *ideo is considered 2newmedia3 %or the ABS due to Association4s relati&ely recent &entures into the word o% %ilm. These %ilms are re%erred to and analysed %re5uently throughout this &olume! asare actual and ossible new &entures using the &isual and aural ossibilities o% C)#6Ms. The &olume o ens with a re&iously ublished article by 7uan Mc8. Fry! atranslation consultant %or the ABS. To a large e9tent! the rest o% the collection is are ly to his 5uestion: how to maintain %aith%ulness to the original te9t whentranslating into a non' rint medium! i.e. what are the threats /though some in this&olume see o ortunities0 to the authority o% the ord o% 8od when the word in te9tis trans%ormed into sounds and(or images.Fry stresses that his &iew o% the 1BS translation ersonnel should not be seen as24censors4 waiting to kill good and creati&e ideas but as ;guides4 seeking to assist inthe working out o% the ideas in a way that is %aith%ul to the Bible! and to the biblicaland their messages3 / 0. $e e9 lains that one engages in midrash when 2reinter reting therecei&ed biblical tradition %or the bene%it o% ? contem ories3 /+-


2/4

should 2remain open to all understandings of the message, all legitimate adaptationsand all new situations . So! ;accuracy4 in new media translation! in his &iew!describes the care taken in translating while ;%idelity4 re%ers to 3the continuity o% res onse3 /+-@0. $e in&estigates the tone and itch atterns o% the ord4s Prayer in

8reek! atin and in 7nglish showing how the musical arameters rein%orce thelanguage. The reader will need to read music to %ully %ollow erner4s arguments. For e9am le! he actually gi&es us instructions! such as 2Now! sing the mo arabic pater noster ! rinted at the beginning o% this section.3Particularly re%reshing are the descri ti&e accounts gi&en by those in&ol&ed in makingthe %ilms. $agedorn! chie% consultant o% the ABS Multimedia Translation Program!gi&es us a %ascinating case study o% the ain%ul rocess o% creating a short %ilm o% oneo% the arables. The interest in his article lies mainly in hi descri tion o% the roblemso% artnershi between the ABS and the %ilm industry. The ABS! as he e9 lains! needsto rotect itsel% against 2schlock ' i.e. biblical %ilms and so%tware with no integrity3!whereas the commercial needs o% %ilm roduction itsel% re5uire %le9ibility regardingthe scri t! in the use actors! location and so on due to %inancial and roductionconstraints.$agedorn4s main issue! though! 2when is a %ilm a translation and when is it anada tation3 seems laboured. ! ersonally! would ha&e thought that Christ ortrayedas a resent'day welder is an ada tation! not a translation. 7nd o% story. Sisley!though! /much later in the &olume0 takes u the ;dilemma4 again! and agrees with$agedorn that ada tation is translation.

orth is a %ilm and tele&ision director and gi&es us a &i&id %irst'hand account o% themaking o% biblical story &ideos %or the ABS! but this time %rom the oint o% &iew o% the director. She dwells on the im ortance o% emotion and %eelings! and! in articular!how she imagined the music to one o% the arables.2Access3 is a key word in this &olume. $agedorn! in %act! concludes by stating that2new media3 means allowing more 2millions3 /D>0 to access the ord o% 8od. #oweo%%ers real insight into gatekee ing ower and the transmission o% in%ormation

beginning %rom the age o% the book through to ;narrowcasting4 and ersonalem owerment o% ; ersonal tele&ision4! internet and the like. Fidelity! according to#owe! can be decided by the em owered &iewer. #owe! here! is not Eust o en to

change and new media ' he is re&olution itsel%. Though he does not use the word! he%ocuses most on harnessing the limitness o ortunities o% hy erte9ting an electronic

bible with audio! &isual! chat! and a host o% other links.Baker4s contribution is the only contribution to look at the ABS4s 2attem t3 tode&elo translation e9ercises s eci%ically %or C) #om. Though she a criticises anumber o% the somewhat mindless translation e9ercises she does acce t that thesociety was working in a &acuum. She also gi&es e9am les showing how other materials ha&e been de&elo ed! suggesting that this is the way %orward %or the ABStoo.

Part o% this &olume %ocuses on deconstructing te9ts and ro&ides %ascinatinginsights into meanings which rint cannot do Eustice to. Scott suggests that the greek bible had to be sounded out loud to create %ull meaning. t then 2 aints a icture that


3/4

no silent transation in rint can ca ture3. $is analysis o% the 8reek is as ainstakingas it is con&incing. Scott calls %or a &ari'media translation /+++0! ointing out /as doothers in this &olume0 that the bible was originally a multimedia e9 erience!

er%ormed in ublic by s ecialists. The in&ention o% the 8utenberg ress! he claims!

constrained meaning inside the rinted age! and relegated inter retation to silent ri&ate reading. Technology is now at hand to e9 loit! what he calls! the originalsound ma s! and we can now once again hear the ord o% 8od as originallyintended..8oethals continues the e9 loration o% 2wholeness o% image and word ? in traditionalreligious %orms3 /+ >0. $is DG' age contribution is by %ar the longest! and chroniclesthe use o% images and their role in the communication o% religious meaning. $e

begins with archaeological e&idence %rom catacomb and cry tic art taking us %inallyto the beauti%ully illustrated )anish children4s Bible! ublished in +,,>. Along theway he in&estigates +, th century American Protestantism and the tension betweenutilitarianism and art in religion. This cha ter is re lete with care%ully analysedillustrations. $e concludes by suggesting that the role o% art in religion! culturalsettings and 5uestions o% %idelity should be discussed by 2translators! religious book

ublishers! manu%acturers o% religious arte%acts! church leaders! theologians! andartists3 /+-G0.Part is o% articular interest %or translators. Sisley uses semiotics and genre analysisto discuss two basic oints: 2the authorial ower that under ins Bible Societies4translations3 / G-0! and inter retati&e authority. She concludes that translations /readada tations0 encourage 24un%aith%ul4 inter retations and generate a new te9t(reader relationshi 3. This contribution directly con%ronts what is tacitly im licit throughoutthis &olume: the im ortant moti&ational di%%erences between the general and the bibletranslation scholar! between religious associations and commercial ublishing housesand! o% course! between lay readers and those who regard the ord o% 8od assacrosanct. She ends with the unsettling 5uestion 2how do the %aith%ul ;know 8od3/ +-0 i% the written ord is no longer centralHSouku continues with %our di%%erent communication models a lied to multimediatranslation! beginning with the traditional trans ortation model / o ularised by Nida0and the semiotic model. The third model is 2communication as ritual3! and is

articularly rele&ant not only to Bible translation but also more generally to currentdebates regarding ower relations! ideologies and centrality o% te9ts within translationstudies. $e 5uotes Carey widely! who states that communication is about the2construction and maintenance o% an ordered! meaning%ul cultural world3 /


4/4

%idelity in the new media translation. $is e9am les include biblical comics and theABS &ideo translations re&iously mentioned. Stecconi! on the other hand! is moretheoretical ' 2 ractical e9am les do not abound3 / G0. 6n%idelity! Stecconi returns to the 2almost taboo3 / > 0 subEect in Translation Studies o% ;e5ui&alence4. $is conclusion is a com lete change o% %ocus %rom Carey4s %ocus onthe reader! or rather the ;belie&ing community4. For Stecconi! e5ui&alence occurslargely because the translator makes it so! 2using in%erences o% the abducti&e kind3/ >,0.All in all the &olume is a rich source o% %acts ideas and o inions regarding %idelity nBible translation and the changes /o ortunities and threats0 engendered by thechanges in roduction: %rom oral! through the in&ention o% chea rinting to theseemingly limitless hori ons o%%ered by non' rint digital &isual and aural

ossibilities. ithout a doubt ;non'belie&ing commuities4 o% translation scholars willalso %ind the book e9tremely stimulating.

2003 review fidelity and translation

Documents